coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău.
7.  The applicant worked as a prosecutor. On 15 January 1998 he was charged with bribe-taking and on 14 May 1999 the Court of Appeal found him guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. By a final judgment of 3 August 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice acquitted him and ordered his immediate release: he claimed to have been released two days later. The overall period of his detention amounted to 567 days.
8.  The applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finance and his employer seeking payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from his unlawful prosecution and detention.
9.  On 25 July 2001 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in his favour and stated that there had been a violation of his right to liberty. The court awarded him 78,055 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 6,945 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage and MDL 500,000 (EUR 44,490 at the time) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The defendants appealed.
10. On 6 February 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court partially upheld the appeal, reduced the award of compensation for pecuniary damage to MDL 27,354.77 (EUR 2,401 at the time) and awarded another 87,000 Russian roubles (RUR, the equivalent of EUR 3,251.92 at the time) and 230 American dollars (USD) in respect of costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings. The Regional Court upheld the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The defendants lodged an appeal in cassation.
11.  By a final judgment of 26 March 2002 the Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeal in cassation and reduced the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 75,000 (EUR 6,341 at the time).
12. On 25 December 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the above-mentioned judgments and for a reduction in the amount of damages.
13.  On 5 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the above-mentioned judgments. The Supreme Court adopted a new judgment and reduced the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 50,000 (EUR 3,261 at the time). It also ordered the re-opening of the proceedings in respect of the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage. On 19 February 2003 the applicant received MDL 50,000.
14. Following the re-opening of the proceedings, on 24 June 2003 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 27,446.09 (EUR 1,679.69 at the time) in respect of pecuniary damage. The remainder of the judgment provided the same as the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 6 February 2002. On 22 July 2003 the judgment was enforced.
4.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1949, respectively, and live in Seferihisar, İzmir.
5.  The applicants’ father, Ali Moğul, sold his two houses which were situated in the Seferihisar district to his sons in 1972 and 1973, respectively, by a notary deed. He transferred the possession of the land on which the houses were located to the applicants; however, this land was not registered in the title deeds at that time. The applicants requested that the land be divided into two parts by the Seferihisar Municipality. Subsequently, the Municipality acceded to their request on 25 April 1979.
6.  On 12 October 1981 the applicants were issued with title deeds for the plots of land numbered 3 and 4 in Seferihisar, following a cadastral survey conducted in the region.
7.  In 1999, a general survey of coastal districts carried out by the National Property Supervisor defined the applicants’ plots of land and houses as falling within the coastline area.
8.  On 18 May 2000 the Treasury brought an action against the applicants before the Seferihisar Civil Court of First Instance for the annulment of their title deeds on the ground that their land was located within the coastline area. They claimed that, according to the Coastal Law of 1990, the land in question could not be owned by an individual, but could only be used in the public interest.
9.  On 29 June 2001 a group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants’ land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area.
10.  On 19 July 2001 the first-instance court upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled the applicants’ ownership in the title deed registry.
11.  The applicants’ requests for an appeal and rectification of this judgment were rejected by the Court of Cassation on 20 February, 22 May and 5 June 2002.
12.  On unspecified dates, the Treasury brought further actions against the applicants, for injunctions to prevent any intervention (müdahelenin men-i ve kal davası) by the applicants on the disputed land and the destruction of the adjoining houses. On 15 June 2004 the Seferihisar Civil Court of First Instance accepted this request in relation to the first applicant. This decision has not yet been finalised. The action against the second applicant is still pending before the same court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Bogodukhiv, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.
5.  In 1980 the applicant was seriously injured while working in the Mushketivska State Mine. As a result, he became an invalid.
6.  On 22 August 2003 the Bogodukhiv Town Court ordered the Ukrvuglerestrukturyzatsiya State Company to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 4,418.63[1] in occupational disability arrears and other payments. It also ordered the Bogodukhiv Town Social Security Fund to pay the applicant a monthly allowance of UAH 405.07[2].
7.  On 4 November 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the decision of 22 August 2003. It awarded the applicant a lump sum of UAH 7,380.56[3] against the company and a monthly allowance of UAH 415.64[4] from the fund, to be calculated from 1 September 2003.
8.  On 26 November 2003 the Bogodukhiv Town Court sent the writ of execution in respect of the aforementioned judgment to the Voroshilovskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk.
9.  On 29 May 2005 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the Ukrvuglerestrukturyzatsiya State Company had been restructured, and invited the applicant to specify name of the Mine where he worked, in order to determine the debtor's successor in the applicant's case.
10.  The judgment of 4 November 2003 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kostyantynivka, the Donetsk region.
5.  On 30 October 1998 and 27 September 1999 the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlivka (Микитівський районний суд м. Горлівка) ordered the State Company “Gorlivrozvidka” (“the Company,” ДП “Горліврозвідка”) to pay the applicant UAH 4,298.97[1] and UAH 3,939.61,[2] respectively, in salary arrears and other payments. These judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the bailiffs' service for enforcement.
6.  On 17 May 2002 the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Микитівського районного управління юстиції в м. Горлівка) informed the applicant that the awarded sums could not be paid to him on account of the Company's lack of funds. It also stated that the attachment of the Company's property was impeded by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”
7.  The judgment of 30 October 1998 was enforced in several instalments, the last payment being made on 7 March 2003.
8.  On 30 November 2004 the applicant received UAH 1,919.03[3] under the judgment of 27 September 1999. The remainder debt is still outstanding to the present day.
4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1952 and lives in the city of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.
5.  In 1999 the applicant, a private entrepreneur, concluded a labour contract with the Shevchenkivskiy District State Administration in Zaporizhzhya.
6.  As the State Administration failed to pay the applicant under the contract, in 2002 she instituted proceedings against it in the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhya Region, seeking recovery of remuneration and compensation for delay in payment.
7.  On 15 January 2003 the court awarded the applicant UAH 16,094.52[1] (Рішення Господарського суду Запоріжської області). This judgment was not appealed against and became final.
8.  On 28 March 2003 the Shevchenkivskiy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Шевченківського районого управління юстиції м. Запоріжжя) initiated enforcement proceedings. On 3 November 2004 the Bailiffs' Service returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that no funds allowing enforcement of the judgment had been found.
9.  On 28 May 2003 and 30 December 2004 the applicant received UAH 6,000[2] and UAH 5,000[3], respectively.
10.  By letters of 5 November and 6 December 2004 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that there were no funds in the debtor's bank accounts and that it was not possible to dispose of the debtor's property because the debtor was a governmental institution.
11.  On 25 August 2005 the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhya Region repeatedly ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour of 15 January 2003. On 20 August 2005 the Bailiffs' Service refused to institute the enforcement proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
12.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains partly unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kremenchuk, the Poltava region.
5.  On 8 April 2003 the Kryukivsky District Court of Kremenchuk (the “District Court,” Крюківський районний суд м. Кременчука Полтавської області) ordered the Kremenchuk Tax Inspectorate (the “Tax Inspectorate,” Кременчуцька об'єднана державна податкова інспекція) to pay the applicant UAH 113,984.80,[1] the amount of overpaid tax.
6.  On 29 May 2003 the Kryukivsky District Bailiffs' Service of Kremenchuk (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Крюківського районного управління юстиції м. Кременчука) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.
7.  On 4 November 2003 the Tax Inspectorate refused to pay the judgment debt and maintained that it should be due from the State Treasury.
8.  On 26 December 2003 the Bailiffs requested the District Court to explain how to enforce the judgment of 8 April 2003.
9.  On 29 December 2003 the District Court found that the judgment debt was to be paid directly from the State Budget and ordered the State Treasury of Kremenchuk (the “Treasury,” Кременчуцьке відділення Державного казначейства України) to pay the award due to the applicant.
10.  At the request of the Treasury, on 20 May 2004 the District Court gave a new explanation as to the enforcement of the judgment of 8 April 2003. In particular, the court ordered that the payment be made from the banking account of the Tax Inspectorate.
11.  On 16 March 2005 the Tax Inspectorate informed the Bailiffs that the sum of the tax overpaid by the applicant had been transferred to the State budget and provided the requisites of the respective account managed by the Treasury.
12.  At the request of the Bailiffs, on 8 August 2005 the District Court modified its explanation of 20 May 2004 and confirmed that the Bailiffs should collect the award due to the applicant from the above Treasury's account.
13.  On 21 June 2006 the judgment of 8 April 2003 was enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the village of Kresty in the Tula Region.
5.  On 20 October 1993 the applicant sued the Chernskiy District Social Security Services for pension arrears, an increase of his monthly pension and compensation for damage.
6.  On 16 December 1993 the Chernskiy District Court accepted the action in full. The judgment was quashed on 1 February 1994 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.
7.  On 15 June 1998 the Chernskiy District Court partly accepted the applicant's action and decided to determine his claim concerning compensation for damage in separate proceedings.
8.  The Social Services appealed against the judgment to the Tula Regional Court. The first appeal hearing was fixed for 27 August 1998. However, it was adjourned until 6 October 1998 because the respondent did not attend.
9.  On 6 October 1998 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 June 1998 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.
10.  The case was assigned to the judge Isayev and the first hearing was fixed for 12 May 1999. That hearing was adjourned upon the parties' request until 23 September 1999.
11.  On 23 August 2000 the Chernskiy District Court received the applicant's amended statement of claims.
12.  On 24 January 2001 the judge Milyokhin was assigned to the case and on 2 July 2001 he scheduled a preliminary hearing. The following hearing, fixed for 7 August 2001, was adjourned because the representative of the Social Services defaulted.
13.  At the hearing of 7 August 2001 the applicant successfully amended his claims and asked to invite the Tula Regional Department of the Social Protection of Population to the proceedings.
14.  The following hearing, fixed for 1 November 2001, was adjourned until 14 December 2001 because the respondent defaulted.
15.  On 14 December 2001 the Chernskiy District Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant's case to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The Constitutional Court was to give interpretation of the pension legislation applicable to the applicant's case. The decision of 14 December 2001 was upheld on appeal on 12 March 2002.
16.  On 12 March 2003 the Chernskiy District Court resumed the proceedings and fixed a hearing for 2 April 2003. That hearing was adjourned until 28 April 2003 to allow the respondent to study the case-file. The applicant once again amended his claims at the hearing of 28 April 2003.
17.  Of the five hearings fixed between 28 April 2003 and 30 November 2005, one hearing was adjourned because the respondent defaulted and three were adjourned upon the applicant's request.
18.  On 8 December 2005 the Chernskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tula Regional Court on 9 February 2006.
19.  On numerous occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case to the prosecutor of the Tula Region and the Judicial Qualification Board of the Tula Region.
4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1955, 1978 and 1958 respectively. The first applicant lives in Krasnyy Luch and the other applicants live in Miusinsk, the Lugansk region.
5.  On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) seeking salary arrears and other payments from the State Mining Company “Miusinska” (ДВАТ шахта “Міусінська” ДП “Донбасантрацит”).
6.  On 4 August 2003 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 4,154.87[1] in favour of the first applicant.
7.  On 31 October 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 2,415.99[2] in favour of the second applicant.
8.  On 27 August 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 1,139.38[3] in favour of the fourth applicant; and
9.  On 26 November 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 4,558.18[4] in favour of the third applicant.
10.  The aforementioned judgments became final and the enforcement writs in their respect were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.
11.  On 10 February 2005 the Bailiffs notified the first and the third applicant that the delays in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour were due to the holding of the debtor's property in a tax lien.
12.  The judgments given in favour of the first, second and third applicant were enforced on 29 August 2005; the judgment given in favour of the fourth applicant was enforced on 1 November 2004.
4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Kherson Region, Ukraine. He is a former employee of the State-owned OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).
5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25463/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005).
6.  On 20 March 2003 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 4,827[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the writs of execution were transferred to the Bailiffs.
7.  By letter of 7 July 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to the proceedings of financial rehabilitation of the debtor.
8.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs' Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant's case. On 23 January and 10 February 2004, it ordered the seizure of the Company's accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee's appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case.
9.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant, the owner of real property which she had been renting, filed a civil action for damages against the tenant.  On 4 September 2000 her action was dismissed by a judgment of the Zielona Góra Regional Court. The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 19 June 2001 her appeal was dismissed by a judgment of the Poznań Court of Appeal. Judge S. G. was the judge rapporteur in the case.
5.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment through a panel of the Poznań Court of Appeal. On 22 October 2001 her cassation appeal was rejected by a decision of that panel. In its written grounds for the decision, the panel stated that the cassation appeal did not comply with a procedural requirement set out in Article 393 3 § 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in that it did not include “arguments showing that its examination [by the Supreme Court] would be justified” within the meaning of this provision (see paragraphs 14-16 below). The mere fact that the cassation appeal contained arguments to show the grounds on which it had been lodged was insufficient for the appeal to be declared admissible. The panel further stated that this shortcoming was serious and as such could not be remedied.
Judge S.G. presided over the panel which gave this decision and also acted as the judge rapporteur on the admissibility issue.
6.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the decision of 22 October 2001, challenging inter alia the composition of the court. She submitted that the fact that the same judge had sat on a panel giving a second-instance judgment on the merits and subsequently on a panel rejecting a cassation appeal against that judgment rendered the proceedings unfair.
7.  On 7 March 2002 her appeal was dismissed by a decision of the Supreme Court. The court first noted the case-law of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of Article 393 3 § 1 (3) of the Code. It referred to its numerous judgments to the effect that a shortcoming in a cassation appeal which took the form of a failure to enumerate the circumstances justifying its examination was of a serious and irreparable character, which could not be remedied by requesting the appellant to rectify it. It further noted that this requirement was closely linked to the examination of the grounds on which the Supreme Court could refuse to entertain a cassation appeal, as listed in Article 393 of the Code (see paragraph 18 below), namely if it considered that no significant legal issue arose in the case or where there were no legal issues involved which would give rise to serious doubts or to discrepancies in the case-law.
8.  It referred to the applicant’s objection in one sentence only:
“The fact that the judge, who took part in the judgment against which the cassation appeal was subsequently lodged, participated in a decision by which this appeal was found inadmissible is of no significance”.
5.  The applicants were born in 1969, 1976, 1982, 1981 and 1959 respectively. The first three applicants live in Ankara, whereas the fourth lives in Istanbul and the fifth in Aydın.
6.  On 28 April 2001 police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicants Gülşen Arslan, Fadime Çelik and Derya Binay at their house. According to the arrest report, the police acted upon a complaint filed by the proprietor of the house, who suspected that the tenants were carrying out some illegal activities on her property. Subsequently, the police also searched the Tohum Cultural Centre and took Cennet Cabat and Tamiş Akpınar into custody. They seized, among other things, large amounts of bulletins, periodicals and leaflets which concerned propaganda against F-type prisons.
7.  On 29 April 2001, upon the request of the Ankara Security Directorate, the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court agreed to extend the applicants’ detention in police custody until 1 May 2001.
8.  On 1 May 2001, upon the Public Prosecutor’s request, a judge at the Ankara State Security Court examined the case file and agreed to extend the applicants’ detention in police custody for three more days.
9.  On 4 May 2001 the applicants were first brought before the Public Prosecutor and then the investigating magistrate at the Ankara State Security Court, who ordered their detention on remand.
10.  On 1 June 2001 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants on account of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, namely, the TKP/ML (the Turkish Communist Party/ Marxist Leninist).
11.  On 9 July 2002, during the first hearing held before the Ankara State Security Court the applicants were released pending trial. On 11 November 2002 the court acquitted the applicants.